This measure would recognize the importance of celebrating the birth and independence of Mexico and honoring and invigorating the spirit of friendship, understanding, and cooperation that characterizes the California-Mexico relationship.
(1) Under the existing California Constitution, the initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the state constitution and to adopt or reject them. This measure would require that an initiative measure that would result in a net increase in state or local government costs, other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds authorized by the measure, as jointly determined by the Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance, may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect unless and until the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance jointly determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs. The California Constitution generally vests the legislative power of the state in California State Legislature. This measure would make void a statute that would result either in a net increase in qualified state costs or a net decrease in state revenue in excess of $25,000,000 annually, as defined by statute and as adjusted for inflation, unless the statute also contains provisions that would result in state program reductions or additional state revenue as defined by statute in an amount that is equal to or greater than the net increase in qualified state costs or net decrease in state revenue subject to exceptions for the Budget Act, and statutes required to fund increased costs for education as required by the Constitution. The California Constitution provides that the Legislature may propose to the electors both amendments and revisions to the California Constitution, and may enact statutes by passing bills. This measure would prohibit a constitutional amendment or revision from being submitted to the electors or having any effect if that measure would create a new state program or agency or expand the scope of an existing state program or agency and cause either a net increase in state costs or a net decrease in state revenues in excess of $25,000,000 annually, as adjusted for inflation, unless the measure identifies additional revenue in an amount that is equal to or greater than the increased costs or decrease in revenue. (2) Existing provisions of the California Constitution provide that if, following the enactment of a Budget Bill, the Governor determines that, for the fiscal year addressed by the Budget Bill, General Fund revenues will decline substantially below the estimate of General Fund revenues upon which the Budget Bill was based, or General Fund expenditures will increase substantially above that estimate of General Fund revenues, or both, the Governor may issue a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency and cause the Legislature to assemble in special session. If the Legislature fails to pass and send to the Governor a bill or bills to address the fiscal emergency by the 45th day following the issuance of the proclamation, the Legislature may not act on any other bill or adjourn for joint recess, until a bill or bills addressing the fiscal emergency has been passed and sent to the Governor. This measure additionally would provide that, if the Legislature has not passed and sent to the Governor a bill or bills addressing a fiscal emergency by the 45th day following the proclamation declaring the emergency, the Governor may, by executive order, reduce or eliminate any unexpended appropriation in the Budget Act for the fiscal year that is not required by the California Constitution or federal law, in an amount not exceeding the amount of the budget discrepancy identified by the Governor. The measure would authorize the Legislature to override those actions of the Governor by a 23 vote of the membership of each house. (3) The California Constitution requires the Governor to submit to the Legislature by January 10 of each year a budget for the ensuing fiscal year, accompanied by a Budget Bill itemizing recommended expenditures. The Legislature is required to pass the Budget Bill by June 15. The Constitution requires that specified bills, including bills making a change in state taxes for the purpose of raising revenue, bills containing an urgency clause, and bills, including the Budget Bill, that make certain appropriations from the General Fund, be passed in each house of the Legislature by a 23 vote. This measure would require the Governor to submit to the Legislature by January 10 of each year a budget for the ensuing fiscal year, known as the budget year, and for the succeeding fiscal year. The measure would require the budget to contain specified information, including performance measurement standards for state agencies and programs, and a projection for anticipated state revenues. The Governor would be required to include in the budget an estimate of the amount of state funds available for the proposed expenditures, and to include revenue and expenditure projections for 3 additional fiscal years. The Governor also would be required to provide a 5-year capital infrastructure and strategic growth plan as specified by statute. If the Governor proposes to create a new state program or agency, or to expand the scope of an existing state program or agency, which would increase state costs during the budget year or the succeeding fiscal year, or proposes to reduce a state tax the effect of which would reduce state revenue in the budget year or the succeeding fiscal year, the measure would require the Governor to identify state program reductions or additional revenues that is equal to or greater than the increase in costs or decrease in revenue. Under the measure, the Governor additionally would be required to provide the Legislature with updated projections of state revenue and expenditures for the budget and succeeding fiscal years at specified times during the budget process. This measure would require that each house of the Legislature, on or before May 1 of each year, refer the Budget Bill and bills implementing the Budget Bill to a joint committee of the Legislature, which must report recommendations to each house by June 20. This measure would require the Legislature, by June 25, to pass and present to the Governor the Budget Bill. The measure also would provide that, if a Budget Bill is not passed and presented to the Governor by June 25, Members of the Legislature would forfeit any salary and travel and living expenses from that date until the date the Budget Bill is passed and presented to the Governor. The measure also would limit the use of unanticipated revenues, as defined pursuant to annual determinations made by the Director of Finance, for specified purposes. Appropriations in a Budget Bill, as defined, would be exempted from the 23-vote requirement that applies to appropriations from the General Fund. A Budget Bill, and any budget implementation bills, would go into effect immediately upon their enactment. Under the existing California Constitution, the referendum is the power of the electors to approve or reject statutes except urgency statutes, statutes calling elections, and statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for usual current expenses of the state. This measure would expressly include statutes enacting the Budget Bill among those exceptions to the power of referendum. (4) The existing California Constitution requires the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature to pass a bill that would make a change in state taxes for the purposes of increasing revenues derived from those taxes. This measure would further require that a bill imposing a fee that would fund a program, service, or activity previously funded by a tax, which was either repealed or reduced in the same fiscal year or a prior fiscal year, be passed by a 23 vote of both legislative houses. (5) The California Constitution authorizes the existence of local governments that can make and enforce ordinances and regulations that are not in conflict with general laws. The California Constitution also requires that general ad valorem property revenues be allocated to local jurisdictions in each county in the manner as provided in statute. This measure would authorize local government agencies, in the manner provided for by statute, to adopt and implement a Countywide Strategic Action Plan, and, upon adoption of the plan in a county, would authorize the county board of supervisors to place on the ballot a measure to impose an additional countywide sales and use tax, the revenues of which would be distributed as provided pursuant to statute and the Countywide Strategic Action Plan. This measure would prohibit the state from reallocating the proceeds of a non-ad valorem tax that is imposed by a local government agency, would specify that general ad valorem property tax revenues are required to be allocated to jurisdictions in the county in which those revenues are collected, and would prohibit the direction by statute of the expenditure of those revenues for any specific purpose or purposes. (6) The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from modifying the manner in which ad valorem property tax revenues are allocated by law so as to reduce, for any fiscal year, the percentage of the total amount of property tax revenues in a county that is allocated among all of the local agencies in that county below the percentage of the total amount of those revenues that would be allocated among those agencies for the same fiscal year under the statutes in effect on November 3, 2004. This prohibition may be suspended for a fiscal year under specified conditions. This measure would limit the suspension authority to the 2009–10 fiscal year. The measure would, except for specified purposes, also prohibit the Legislature from reallocating or directing the expenditure of property tax revenues that are allocated to a community redevelopment agency under constitutional provisions that authorize the expenditure by the agency of incremental property tax revenues in a redevelopment project area. (7) This measure provides that it would become operative on January 1, 2011.
The California Constitution provides that the electors may propose statutes or amendments to the state constitution through the initiative process by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by a certain number of electors. This measure would prohibit an initiative measure that would result in a net increase in state or local government costs other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds, from being submitted to the electors or having any effect unless and until the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance jointly determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs.
Existing law does not provide a system of universal health care coverage for California residents. Existing law provides for the creation of various programs to provide health care services to persons who have limited incomes and meet various eligibility requirements. These programs include the Healthy Families Program administered by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, and the Medi‑Cal program administered by the State Department of Health Care Services. Existing law provides for the regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and health insurers by the Department of Insurance. This bill would establish the California Healthcare System to be administered by the newly created California Healthcare Agency under the control of a Healthcare Commissioner appointed by the Governor and subject to confirmation by the Senate. The bill would make all California residents eligible for specified health care benefits under the California Healthcare System, which would, on a single-payer basis, negotiate for or set fees for health care services provided through the system and pay claims for those services. The bill would provide that a resident of the state with a household income, as specified, at or below 200% of the federal poverty level would be eligible for the type of benefits provided under the Medi-Cal program. The bill would require the commissioner to seek all necessary waivers, exemptions, agreements, or legislation to allow various existing federal, state, and local health care payments to be paid to the California Healthcare System, which would then assume responsibility for all benefits and services previously paid for with those funds. The bill would create the Healthcare Policy Board to establish policy on medical issues and various other matters relating to the system. The bill would create the Office of Patient Advocacy within the agency to represent the interests of health care consumers relative to the system. The bill would create within the agency the Office of Health Planning to plan for the health care needs of the population, and the Office of Health Care Quality, headed by a chief medical officer, to support the delivery of high quality care and promote provider and patient satisfaction. The bill would create the Office of Inspector General for the California Healthcare System within the Attorney General's office, which would have various oversight powers. The bill would prohibit health care service plan contracts or health insurance policies from being issued for services covered by the California Healthcare System. The bill would create the Healthcare Fund and the Payments Board to administer the finances of the California Healthcare System. The bill would create the California Healthcare Premium Commission (Premium Commission) to determine the cost of the California Healthcare System and to develop a premium structure for the system that complies with specified standards. The bill would require the Premium Commission to recommend a premium structure to the Governor and the Legislature on or before January 1, 2013, and to make a draft recommendation to the Governor, the Legislature, and the public 90 days before submitting its final premium structure recommendation. The bill would specify that only its provisions relating to the Premium Commission would become operative on January 1, 2011, with its remaining provisions becoming operative on the date the Secretary of California Health and Human Services notifies the Legislature, as specified, that sufficient funding exists to implement the California Healthcare System. The bill would require that system to be operative within 2 years of that date and would provide for various transition processes for that period. The bill would extend the application of certain insurance fraud laws to providers of services and products under the system, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by revising the definition of a crime. The bill would enact other related provisions relative to budgeting, regional entities, federal preemption, subrogation, collective bargaining agreements, compensation of health care providers, conflict of interest, patient grievances, independent medical review, and associated matters. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
This measure would urge the President and the Congress of the United States to consider the removal of commercial, economic, and financial restrictions relating to agricultural sales to Cuba.
Existing law, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on and after January 1, 2014, requires a health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage in the individual or group market to accept every employer and individual in the state that applies for that coverage, as specified, and requires issuers in the individual and small group markets to ensure that the coverage includes a specified essential benefits package. The act requires an essential health benefits package to provide coverage in one of 5 levels based on actuarial value, as specified. Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law imposes various requirements with respect to individual contracts and policies issued by health care service plans and health insurers. Existing law requires a health care service plan to permit, at least once each year, an individual who has been covered for at least 18 months under an individual plan contract issued by the health care service plan to transfer, without medical underwriting, as defined, to another individual plan contract offered by the health care service plan having equal or lesser benefits, as specified. Existing law imposes a parallel requirement with respect to individual policies issued by health insurers. This bill would eliminate the 18-month requirement and would require plans and insurers to allow an individual to transfer to another individual contract or policy without medical underwriting on the annual renewal date of his or her contract or policy. Commencing July 1, 2011, the bill would require plans and insurers to categorize all products offered in the individual market into 5 tiers according to actuarial value, as specified, and would require plans and insurers to disclose this value and other information in certain disclosure forms. Existing law prohibits a health care service plan from expending for administrative costs, as defined, an excessive amount of the payments the plan receives for providing health care services to its subscribers and enrollees. The Insurance Commissioner is required to withdraw approval of an individual or mass-marketed policy of disability insurance if the commissioner finds that the benefits provided under the policy are unreasonable in relation to the premium charged, as specified. The federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act prohibits a health insurance issuer issuing health insurance coverage from establishing lifetime limits or unreasonable annual limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary, as specified. The act also requires a health insurance issuer issuing health insurance coverage to provide an annual rebate to each enrollee if the ratio of the amount of the revenue expended by the issuer on costs to the total amount of premium revenue is less than a certain percentage, as specified. This bill would require health care service plans and health insurers to comply with the requirements imposed under those provisions to the extent required under federal law. Because a willful violation of the bill's requirements with respect to health care service plans would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
This measure would designate May 2009 as Foster Care Month.
Existing law requires the State Department of Education to administer the School-to-Career Program, and to serve certain roles with respect to administering the program, including developing or participating in the development of specified accountability measurements, awarding grants to eligible qualified applicants, providing technical and professional assistance to all local partnerships, consulting and offering advice to partnerships, and providing an informational link where local partnerships can collaborate and exchange successful and innovative methods and ideas. This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to these provisions.
Existing law prohibits employers from engaging in unfair labor practices, including interfering in the election by agricultural employees of labor representatives to engage in collective bargaining for the designated bargaining units. Existing law provides for a secret ballot election for employees in agricultural bargaining units, as defined, to select labor organizations to represent them for collective bargaining purposes. This bill would authorize the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, under specified circumstances, to set aside an election where there has been misconduct by the employer affecting the outcome of the election and to certify a labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representative for a bargaining unit if the organization had previously presented the board with authorization cards signed by more than 50% of the employees in that bargaining unit.
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. A willful violation of the act constitutes a crime. Existing law requires every health care service plan to establish and maintain a grievance system approved by the department under which enrollees and subscribers may submit a grievance to the plan. Existing law authorizes a subscriber or enrollee to submit his or her grievance to the department for review after completing the grievance process or after having participated in that process for at least 30 days. Existing law requires the department to send a written notice of the final disposition of the grievance to an enrollee or subscriber within 30 days of receiving the request for review, unless the director determines that additional time is reasonably necessary to fully review the grievance. This bill would, upon a determination by the director that, do to extraordinary circumstances, additional time is necessary to review a grievance, set forth the procedures that would apply to the department with regard to the review of that grievance and the payment of specified costs by the department. Upon a failure of a health care service plan to comply with a request from the department for information related to the grievance, the bill would authorize the department to impose an administrative fine on that plan, pursuant to specified procedures, as determined by the department. Existing law requires the director to make and file annually with the department as a public record an aggregate summary of grievances against plans filed with the department, as specified. This bill would require the director to include in that report specified information related to the department's review of grievances against health care service plans.
